R.MANICKA NAICKER ETC. versus E. ELUMALAI NAICKER ETC.

Citation: [1995] 3 S.C.R. 217 · Decided: 07-04-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

' -\. 
R.MANICKA NAICKER ETC. 
v. 
E. ELUMALAI NAICKER ETC. 
APRIL 7, 1995 
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] 
Madras Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 
1963-Section 13-Effect of-Building owned by the tenant immediately 
before the appointed date-i..and owned by the Inamdm-Land does not vest 
A 
B 
in the person who owned the building-lnamdar entitled to recover possession C 
of land. 
Madras Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 
1963-Section 43 and 46-Effect of-Decision of the Tribunal or the Special 
Appellate Tribunal binding only in respect of matters covered by the 
Act-Jurisdiction of Civil Courts to adjudicate title not ousted. 
D 
On 15.12.1985, the Madras Minor loams (Abolition and conversion 
into Ryotwari) Act 1963 came into force and by virtue of the said Act all 
Minor loams were abolished and ryotwari pattas were granted to the 
persons so entitled under the provisions of the said Act. 
E 
The respondent was the original Inamdar '.n respect of the suit which 
were minor Inam lands. The appellant was the tenant of the respondent 
and bad constructed a structure on the said land. The respondent filed a 
suit for recovery of the land from the appellant on various grounds and 
the suit was decreed in favour of the respondent on 31.8.1972. However, F 
while the suit was still pending, the Assistant settlement officer had, by bis 
order dated 29.2.1972, granted a joint patta in favour of the appellant as 
well as the respondent under the provisions of the Madras Minor loams 
(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963. By the aforesaid 
order, the Assistant settlement officer granted ground ren~ patta for the G 
building in· favour of the appellant and for the site in favour of the 
respondent. 
The respondent applied for execution of the decree passed in his 
favour in the suit for recovery of possession. The said application of the 
respondent was dismissed by the City Civil Court on the ground that by H 
217 
218 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1995] 3 S.C.R. 
A order of the Assistant Settlement officer, the appellant bad become the 
owner of the land and bis status bad changed and therefore the decree 
could not be executed. In revision, the High Court reversed the order of 
the city Civil Court holding that grant of a ryotwari patta under the 
Madras Minor lnams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 
B did not amount to an adjudication on title. 
c 
Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. Section 13 of the Madras Minor lnams (Abolition and 
Conversion into Ryotwari) Act does not vest any property in a person in 
whom that property did not vest prior to the appointed day. It merely sets 
out that a building shall vest in the person who owned it before the 
appointed day. Section 13(2) merely provides that the site on which the 
building stands will also be covered by Section 13(1). Hence the site on 
D which the building stands will vest in the person who owned it immediately 
before the appointed date. The effect of sub·sect~on (2) is not to make a 
statutory transfer of the land to the owner of the building where it has not 
formerly belonged to him. An inamdar who continues to be in constrnqive 
possession of the site even after the notified date wonld be entitled to 
E recover possession from ~'s tenant. [223·D, E, G] 
Sri Kumarakatta/ai Subrahmanyaswami Devasthanam v. KS. San· 
dararajudu Chettiar,, ILR (1975) 1 Mad 501, approved. 
2. The grant of ryotwari patta is for the purpose of collection of land 
F revenue. By eliminating Minor lnams any intermediaries for the collection 
of land revenue are eliminated. In the case of buildings situated within an 
loam land, Section 13 of the Madras Minor lnams (Abolition and Conver· 
sion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 provides that the building shall vest in the 
person who owned <t immediately before the appointed day but the Govern· 
G ment shall be entitled to levy appropriate assessment on it. As the object 
of the enquiry by the settlement officer is the grant of a ryotwari patta as 
a revenue settlement, the grant of a patta cannot be eqnated with an 
adjudication of title to the lands in question. [223-C] 
3. In the present case, the patta granted expressly provides that the 
H appellant bas been granted a ground rent patta in respect of the building, 
R. MANICKANAICKER v. E.E. NAICKER 
219 
while the patta for the site has been granted to the respondent. Theref

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.